Creationism myth: science textbooks in some UK nursery schools teach the seven days of creation and Adam and Eve. Photograph: Getty Images

Dave Hone writes: The issue of creationism in the UK is something I have considered writing about for some time. However, aside from being aware that there are groups attempting to promote various brands of creationism and to get them taught in schools as scientific, I actually know rather little about what is happening. Happily however, I recently met with Richy who does know about this and he kindly agreed to write this guest post on the subject.

Zack Kopplin recently wrote an excellent overview of the many and varied debates raging around creationism and intelligent design in US schools. State governments in Louisiana and Tennessee have passed bills allowing creationism to be taught as a critique of scientific theories being studied, many other such bills are proposed every year, and ten states have voucher schemes whereby parents can remove their children from state schools and have the state pay for them to go to private creationist schools instead.

Here in the UK we are fortunate that there is a strong political consensus against the teaching of creationism in schools as a scientifically valid theory. Michael Gove has said that he is "crystal clear" that creationism is not science, and therefore will not be taught as such in Free Schools. His stance is to be welcomed, although there are still a myriad of issues and battles to be won on this important topic. Creationism is still an issue in the UK and one that should be brought to wider attention.

Before we go any further, to be completely clear, what is objectionable is the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as scientifically valid. The very simple reason for this is that they are not: the huge weight of evidence and consensus that follows it overwhelmingly supports evolution as being the best explanation we have, and strongly rejects alternative explanations. However, this is not to say that schools shouldn't be able to choose to teach about the Christian, Jewish or Muslim creation narratives, as these are prominent stories and there may be a place for such teaching in Religious Education.

The main focus in recent years has been to stop Free Schools teaching pseudoscience and to get evolution in the primary curriculum. Other issues have more recently come to light, such as funding for creationist nurseries.

When the Free Schools programme was launched three years ago it was immediately clear that they would be an attractive option for creationist groups. The schools are 100% state funded, but at the same time they do not need to teach the national curriculum, and proposals for schools can be made without widespread local knowledge until they are backed by the government to open. Indeed, many creationist groups applied: over the first three years of the programme, "there were at least nine applications from private schools teaching the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum, which believes that the Loch Ness monster disproves evolution and that there is no biological basis for homosexuality. Ten came from the Christian Schools' Trust network of private, typically creationist schools, while at least 15 were from the Exclusive Brethren, a group which often holds creationist views and whose private schools do not offer ICT GCSE, because they see technology as a potentially corrupting influence."

While these proposals were rejected, unfortunately a few concerning cases slipped through the net. For example, Grindon Hall Christian School is a former private school that re-opened as a Free School last September. Shortly before re-opening, a "Creation Policy" was discovered on its website as a result of a simple Google search. The school denies it is creationist, but at the same time admitted to me that they had tried to remove the document from the website in order to gain Government approval. Should this situation ever have arisen?

However, in response to the controversy caused, the scrutiny of Free School proposals does appear to have tightened up significantly. In addition the Government has made a number of positive changes to the rules governing Free Schools: in January last year it was announced that they would be precluded from teaching pseudoscience, and in November it was similarly required that they teach evolution. A consequence of all this is that the latest round of applications has seen a drop in Free School proposals. There are still some niggling concerns to be addressed here but the situation is clearly improved.

What about other schools? Maintained schools need to follow the national curriculum. At secondary level this already includes evolution, and at primary level it is currently proposed that there will be modules on evolution and natural selection added from year four (ages 8-9). This is very much to be welcomed and final approval of the change should hopefully be announced shortly.

And what about nurseries? Recently it was discovered that all the creationist groups which have been trying and failing to get funding for Free Schools have for years now been happily lapping up the funding provided for free nursery places for three and four year olds. By looking at the Accelerated Christian Education's nursery textbooks we find that in science, children are taught to identify what happened on each of the seven days of creation and about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In social studies they are also taught about Noah's Ark. How is allowing this consistent with the approach taken elsewhere?

So there has been progress on this issue. But more work needs to be done to stop creationism from being pushed in the state funded education system. Scientists, educators and the Government must continue to be invested in ensuring it is further diminished, not allowed to increase.Richy Thompson is education campaigner at the British Humanist Association and campaigns for the teaching of evolution and against the teaching of creationism in UK schools. The BHA coordinates the "Teach evolution, not creationism campaign, whose supporters include Sir David Attenborough, Professor Richard Dawkins, Sir Paul Nurse, Professor Michael Reiss, the Association for Science Education, the British Science Association and the Campaign for Science and Engineering

The fundamental ideas behind the theory of evolution have been scientific gospel for decades - and yet creationists refuse to go the way of the dinosaurs. Who exactly are they? And just what do they believe? Stephen Moss reports